Are miracles possible?

God would be all-powerful and able to work miracles. Nature
is then open to the possibility of miracles. For if it is dependent
on God for its existence, it is also dependent on him for whatever
else he may want to do in it.

Related Issues

What about Science and Miracles?

Approach One: Science depends on observation
and replication. Miracles do not strictly speaking fall into
physical science, as they are by definition unrepeatable.
The possibility of miracles is a philosophical question, not
a scientific one. Science can only say that they do not occur
in the ordinary course of nature, it cannot determine the
possibility of their existence.

Approach Two: Possible Logical Counter Argument

1. Scientific understanding is always
based on constant repetition of events
1.a. This repetition need not be a repetition of the event
we are analyzing but only of other similar events e.g. scientific
singularities include the Big Bang, Spontaneous generation
of life, and macro evolution theories
2. Miracles are not constantly repeated events
3.b. Therefore, miracles need not be eliminated from the realm
of scientific understanding. Moreover,
4. Constant repetition informs us that wherever complex information
is conveyed there was an intelligent cause.
5. There are some scientific singularities (such as the origin
of first life) where complex information is conveyed (the
information contained in the first single cell which emerged
on earth would fill a whole volume of an encyclopedia)
6. Therefore, there is a scientific basis for positing an
intelligent non-natural cause for the origin of first life

And since this kind of singularity produced by a supernatural
intelligent being would be a miracle by definition, then we
have a firm scientific base for believing in miracles.

What is a Miracle?

A miracle is a striking and religiously significant intervention of God
in the system of natural causes. [1 p. 109]

Two Different Questions

There are two different questions, firstly “Are miracles possible?” and
secondly, “Are miracles actual?” The answer to this second question requires
knowledge of events in history. Some form of historical investigation
is required in order to determine whether a miracle has actually happened.
[1 p. 109]

However, nearly all people that deny that miracles have actually happened,
have not done so because of historical investigation, but rather philosophical
arguments; arguments that are supposed to prove that miracles cannot
happen. [1 p. 109]

How does a person justify so strong a claim that no miracles have
ever happened in the entire course of human history? Did they examine
every alleged miracle story, sift through all the evidence on a case-by-case
basis? Of course not; that kind of investigation would take lifetimes.
How then could such a claim ever be justified? Only if their exists
arguments showing that miracles are impossible or vastly improbable.
That would free us from the need to take any evidence for miracles seriously,
because we would already know that it is not really worth considering
at all. [1 p. 110]

We therefore need to start by examining arguments for the possibility
of miracles. This then allows us, or opens us up to examining the historical
question of whether or not they really happened.

Arguments for the Possibility of Miracles

Obviously, you cannot believe miracles have happened without believing
that a miracle-worker exists. So behind the important question of whether
or not miracles are possible, lies the even bigger question, “Does God
exist?” If one does not believe in God, then you will not accept the miraculous.

The conclusion of the previous section “Does
God exist?” is the foundation for the argument for the possibility
of miracles.

Once we have established that God exists, there are two arguments
for the possibility of miracles: one from the side of God, the miracle-worker,
or the cause, and the other from the side of the world, or the effect.
[1 p. 110]

Firstly, there is no defense against miracles in God’s nature, no
assurance that God would not work a miracle. For if there is a God,
he is all-powerful (omnipotent), and therefore would be able to work
miracles. So there is no obstacle to miracles in God. If there is a
God, miracles are possible. [1
p. 110]

Second, there is no obstacle or defense against miracles on the part
of the world of nature. If God created it in the first place, that is,
if nature is open to the possibilities of existing or not existing,
then it is open to the possibilities of containing miracles or not containing
them. In other words, if the author can create the play, he can change
it too. And if the play is dependent on God, its author, for its very
existence, then it is also dependent on him for whatever else he may
want to do in it. [1 p. 110]
If God exists, then He is capable of transcending natural law, of which
He is the author. [22]

Conclusion

For those who battle to accept the possibility of miracles, the real problem
is not so much with miracles, as with the whole concept of God. Once we
accept the existence of God, there is no problem with miracles, as God
is by definition all-powerful and fully capable of bringing them about.
[22]

Once we have established that miracles are possible, we should be
open to examining their actuality. Whether or not a given miracle has
occurred becomes a historical matter that calls for investigation. [20]
The rest of this Apologetic study asks you to do exactly that, to carefully
and honestly examine evidences for the miracle of the Incarnation –
God taking on human form.

Related issues

What about Science and Miracles?

The success of modern science in describing the world in terms of cosmic
regularity has led some to rule out miracles as an outdated and impossible
concept. This is an unwarranted philosophical assumption and not a scientific
conclusion. [20]

Science consists of knowledge based on observed facts and tested truths
arranged in an orderly system. Science operates by assuming certain
things given, and an order or regularity that makes empirical (based
on experiment and observation) investigation possible. [1
p. 112] Science depends upon observation and replication.

That is why questions like: “How come the world of matter exists at
all – rather than nothing?” or “What caused the Big Bang – the absolute
beginning of all material being?” are also not, strictly speaking, questions
within physical science. This does not mean that such questions are
meaningless, only that science cannot answer them. [1
p. 112] Scientific understanding is based on constant repetition
of events. [24]

Miracles, such as God taking on human form or Jesus’ resurrection
from the dead, are by their very nature unprecedented events. No one
can replicate these, or similar, events in order to observe them.[21]

A scientist who, say, believes that God caused the universe to exist
has not abandoned scientific method, but merely acknowledges its limits.
[1 p. 113]

Also, note that once we have established that God exists, we can conclude
that that miracles are not in conflict with any natural law. Rather,
miracles are unusual events caused by God, and the laws of nature are
generalizations about ordinary events caused by Him." [22]

The question of whether miracles are possible is not scientific, but
philosophical. Science can only say miracles do not occur in the ordinary
course of nature. [22]
It cannot determine the possibility of their existence.

For a interesting argument showing that the methodology and “laws”
of science, actually support the miraculous, please see “Truth Journal,
Miracles and Modern Scientific Thought” by Professor Norman Geislee
[24]. The following is
a brief outline of his approach.

A typical argument against miracles is as follows

Scientific understanding is always based on constant repetition
of events

Miracles are not constantly repeated

Therefore, there is no scientific way to understand miracles

A closer examination of the flaws in this argument reveals a revised argument
that actually supports miracles

1. Scientific understanding is always based on constant repetition of
events
1.a. This repetition need not be a repetition of the event we are analyzing
but only of other similar events e.g. scientific singularities include
the Big Bang, Spontaneous generation of life, and macro evolution theories
2. Miracles are not constantly repeated events
3.b. Therefore, miracles need not be eliminated from the realm of scientific
understanding. Moreover,
4. Constant repetition informs us that wherever complex information is
conveyed there was an intelligent cause.
5. There are some scientific singularities (such as the origin of first
life) where complex information is conveyed (the information contained
in the first single cell which emerged on earth would fill a whole volume
of an encyclopedia)
6. Therefore, there is a scientific basis for positing an intelligent
non-natural cause for the origin of first life

And since this kind of singularity produced by a supernatural intelligent
being would be a miracle by definition, then we have a firm scientific
base for believing in miracles. Should someone protest that there is still
a remote chance that life arose naturally i.e. intelligence resulting
from a non-intelligent cause, non-living producing the living, which goes
against uniform and universally available experience with no verified
exceptions. You need only remind them that science is not based on flukes
or anomalies, it is based on regularities and repetition

Is it not more likely that miracles never really occurred as described?

As a miracle, by definition, goes against some law of nature, is it not
therefore an unlikely event? It is therefore always more likely that the
event never really occurred as described (or remembered)? [1
p. 111]

While miracles are certainly unusual, how do we know whether they
are likely to happen or not? We only know this, if we have already decided
whether or not it is likely that God exists - or that he would ever
work a miracle. [1 p. 112]

To assume that miracles are unlikely, one is assuming that God does
not exist or does not intervene in nature, and therefore the event reported
is not a miracle at all. [1
p. 112]

Suppose, for example, that we are asking whether Jesus rose from the
dead. We need to consider whether to believe the various reports of
his resurrection that are recorded in the New Testament. It won't do
to dismiss them simply on the ground that "that sort of thing has never
been observed." We can't know that unless we already know that the reports
in the New Testament are mistaken. [25]

While miracles may be unusual, this fact does not allow us to conclude
their impossibility – that they never really occurred as described.
We should still be open to honest and careful historical investigation
of their actuality.